field-siding NT: Do I REALLY care?

[flemnevershowered]

Folk:

I'm trying to dream up ways to avoid the 1NT response to 1C and 1D.
There are two issues:

What's the attrition rate while using this response in serious
duplicate, IOW, is there really an issue?

If one uses that Walshish treatment where 1C-1D and 1D-1H can be made
on three cards with the 5-8 weak hands, no major etc, what kind of
follow-up structure works efficiently, IOW, for example, how do I
handle my partner's splinter or other, even stronger actions, over my
3-card heart suit?

Regards and Happy Trails,

Scott Needham
Boulder, Colorado, USA

[None]

IME (club/sectional/regional duplicates) the 1N response gains more
often than not.

1N preempts the majors before 4th hand can act. While 4th has a
takeout double, if his shape isn't right (eg, length in m/short in om)
he may choose to pass. We often win this part score battle vs. the
field, whose auction has begun 1N-P-P-?. Now 4th hand has some cheap
D.O.N.T. bid to show any two suits.


The occasions when "wrong-siding" the NT has cost a trick are
infrequent, and it's not all one way. We've occasionally gained one
too.


My partners lack the memory skills for methods like the ones you're
considerng, but we wouldn't bother even if they could remember. Losing
the preemptive effect of 1N isn't worth the cost or the effort, not to
mention those rebid problems that would percolate through the entire
system.


Another risk with 3-card responses on weak hands is that (a) they're
alertable so (b) you open the door to more doubles. Preempting 4th
hand's suit and putting him under the pressure of deciding whether to
bid at the two level in front of a potentially powerful opener (who
knows responder has a few values) is more effective. IMO, YMMV, etc.

Doug Deacon